When Mitchell Crooks checked out of the county jail last month and checked into a Las Vegas hospital, the 36-year-old videographer knew he had a fight on his hands.

His face was bloodied and bruised. His $3,500 camera had been impounded by police, and he faced criminal charges for battery on a police officer.

One month later, things have changed for Crooks.

The Clark County district attorney's More..office has dropped all charges, and Crooks has retained an attorney of his own. The Metropolitan Police Department has opened an internal investigation into the Las Vegas police officer, Derek Colling, who Crooks says falsely arrested and beat him for filming police.

And his camera -- which captured the entire March 20 altercation between Crooks and Colling -- has been returned.

The words are friendly enough, but the tone is tense:

"Can I help you, sir?" Colling asks from his patrol car after parking it in front of Crooks' driveway and shining the spotlight on Crooks.

"Nope. Just observing," Crooks responds, fixing his camera on the officer.

Crooks had for an hour been recording the scene across the street from his home in the 1700 block of Commanche Circle, near East Desert Inn Road and South Maryland Parkway, where officers had several young burglary suspects handcuffed and sitting on the curb.

As Las Vegas crimes go, the activity was fairly boring. Crooks wanted to use his new camera, and he figured his neighbors would like to see the suspects' faces.

When Colling loaded suspects into the back of his car and drove in a circle through the cul-de-sac, Crooks said he thought police were leaving. Then the officer stopped his car.

"Do you live here?" Colling asks.

"Nope," Crooks says.

Colling steps out of his patrol car.

Crooks said he now regrets not telling the officer that he was in fact standing in his own driveway. He realizes his response seemed cheeky, but he said the officer made him nervous. Colling walks toward Crooks, left hand raised.

"Turn that off for me," Colling orders.

"Why do I have to turn it off?'' Crooks responds. "I'm perfectly within my legal rights to be able to do this."

The officer repeats the command several times; each time Crooks reiterates his right to film.

"You don't live here," Colling says, now close to Crooks.

"I do live here!"

"You don't live here, dude."

"I just said I live here!"

As Crooks backs away, Colling grabs him by the shoulder and throws him down. On the ground, Crooks grabs the camera and turns it toward his face.

Colling's leg then enters the video frame. Crooks says he believes that was the kick that broke his nose.

The camera records the sound of Crooks screaming. He said that's when Colling was punching his face.

"Shut up!" Colling yells. "Stop resisting!"

YOU'RE IN A WORLD OF HURT,' OFFICER SAYS

In his arrest report Colling wrote that Crooks grabbed his shoulders "and attempted to take me to the ground. I in turn took him to the ground."

At Clark County Detention Center, Crooks was booked for battery on a police officer and obstruction of justice. He was released from jail the next day. On March 26, the Review-Journal reported on his case. Four days later all charges were dropped.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent said he dismissed the charges because the police report was vague.

"I asked for a more definite description of the battery because battery requires a violent touching," Laurent said. Police never provided that information.

Crooks said he always believed he'd be vindicated, but after police returned his camera he knew he had proof.

"I was confident I was doing the right thing, but I was excited they (the DA's office) weren't wasting any time, and that somebody was smart enough to know I was acting within the law," he said.

Crooks said the incident looks worse on tape than he remembered.

What bothered him the most, he said, was Colling's attitude after he was placed in handcuffs.

"Why did you do that? I live here," Crooks is heard pleading on the tape.

"You just told me you didn't live here," Colling says. "You live right here, in this house?"

Crooks asks for paramedics. Colling tells him to shut up and follow orders.

"If you fight again, dude Hey, if you (expletive) fight again, dude, you're in a world of hurt. You hear me?

"You're not in charge here, buddy. You hear me?"

Colling mocks Crooks' labored breathing.

"Oh yeah, buddy. Hey, when you don't do what I ask you to do, then you're in a world of hurt. Then you're in a world of hurt. Aren't ya? Huh?"

Crooks was later diagnosed with a deviated septum and a chest wall injury. Crooks believes his ribs were broken, but never got X-rays that could prove it.

ACLU LAWYERS SAY OFFICER WAS WRONG

Allen Lichtenstein, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, reviewed Crooks' video and said Colling was clearly in the wrong. Officers are trained to avoid escalating situations, but Colling initiated the incident and created a physical confrontation without provocation, he said.

"It raises serious questions about whether the officer used good judgment and whether he was properly trained," Lichtenstein said. "Those questions require answers."

Police have no expectation of privacy, and it's perfectly legal to film officers as long as it does not interfere in their investigation, he said. Colling erred in claiming that Crooks was trespassing. By law, only a property owner or resident can make a trespassing complaint, Lichtenstein said.

"Even if the officer didn't think he lived there, that doesn't mean he didn't have permission to be there,'' Lichtenstein said. "In the video I heard, that question was never asked."

Crooks' attorney, David Otto, on Thursday sent police a statement from Crooks, along with a demand for $500,000 to cover Crooks' medial care, pain and suffering.

Colling had no legitimate reason to approach Crooks that night, Otto wrote.

"Officer Colling was aggravated that a citizen should have the audacity to video tape, him -- a Las Vegas Metropolitan Patrol Officer,'' Otto wrote. "Officer Colling decided to use the fear and terror of his physical ability to beat Mr. Crooks into submission -- to teach Mr. Crooks and, by example, all citizens and residents of the Las Vegas Valley."

The suspects in Colling's patrol car may have witnessed the event and given statements to detectives, but their names have not been released. Police said they were not arrested or booked, so their names are not public record.

I can't wait to see the usual suspects here defend the cops. "cops have such a hard job, you just don't understand", or "Why didn't the perp just follow orders", or "If he wasn't such a dirt bag he wouldn't be on the ground", or "Ferrel humans deserve the beat downs they get, extra judicial punishment". Just wondering which ones will come.

This is a case where the officers should be sued and the demand is not for money but for their badges and a permanent order that they never serve in any law enforcement position, even mall patrol, again.

6
posted on 04/23/2011 3:13:58 PM PDT
by KarlInOhio
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Tea Party extremism is a badge of honor.)

I believe they should be charged with simple assault. They should not enjoy special protection. They go to jail and do the time like everybody else.

But mainly, I would like to see the way Police Officers are trained, empowered, funded and protected changed. They should lose their special protected status.

They should also not be protected from civil suits. Right now, the City will foot the bill if they lose a civil case. I would rather see the money come out of the officer retirement fund, and his kids college fund.

9
posted on 04/23/2011 3:18:04 PM PDT
by DariusBane
(People are like sheep and have two speeds: grazing and stampede)

I think the most telling part of all the incidents like these, the ones that end up on video tape is that nearly all of them the charges brought by the officer against the people they assault are dropped by the DA’s like hot potatoes...

This is no longer about the fallacy of the “isolated incident” or the “bad apple” argument.

We’ve been blaming the “one bad apple” for decades now and the official bad apple count has far exceeded the acceptable bad apple to bushel basket ratio long years ago.

The argument no longer holds water when you begin to look at the sheer number and the magnitude of news stories in print and TV media today of misconduct and crimes committed by our police on a daily basis.

And these are just the incidents that are reported in the media. Incidents from departments that are large enough to warrant media scrutiny. Not every department issues a press release each time an officer is suspended or fired. An internal investigation is initiated or a complaint of criminal behavior is received.

He stated that the “cop made him nervous”. When you hear him talking to the cop, he “thinks” he told the cop he lives there.

Wonder why the cop made him nervous?

The officer cannot create a trespass complaint. Only the property owner can. It really does not matter. In fact the point is, Crookes had no obligation to answer the cop honestly, or even to answer him at all.

22
posted on 04/23/2011 3:36:01 PM PDT
by DariusBane
(People are like sheep and have two speeds: grazing and stampede)

What you don’t know, cannot know is that this issue has been a long standing, running argument between two camps in conservatism. The Law and Order camp and the constitutional conservation camp. I am in the constitutional conservation camp. This post does not occur in a vacuum. It occurs as an ongoing thread.

When the chips are down Psycho, which camp are you in? Law and Order? Constitution?

Is that question too childish for you?

25
posted on 04/23/2011 3:39:05 PM PDT
by DariusBane
(People are like sheep and have two speeds: grazing and stampede)

Hell will have long been frozen over before they open an investigation of any kind. The cop was only putting the slave in his place. If he is not showed where his place is, he may start thinking he is as good as the cop. Hell, any of the Cops-Can-Do-Wrong crowd can tell you that that is not the case.

Law Enforcement as it is carried out in this country needs to be reformed.

I don’t give a fig about the actions of an individual cop. I care about the institutions that across this country train an army of Union Thugs. I also care about the tax payers who demand the Police “do more”. I also care about the voters who constantly transfer risk from themselves onto society. They want to live in safety, and no law is to onerous, to get that.

Hell will have long been frozen over before they open an investigation of any kind

Oh they may open an investigation, and the cop will be found to have "followed procedure." Police don't have to follow the laws that the rest of us follow. They have to follow nebulous and changing "departmental guidelines," and "departmental procedures." These investigations buy whitewash by the truckload.

32
posted on 04/23/2011 3:45:13 PM PDT
by from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)

"I care about the institutions that across this country train an army of Union Thugs."

It's the unionization that has done the most damage, IMO. They all belong to their own secret club and their only loyalty is to that club. I agree that it's not the actions of the individual LEO that are problematic (although, that's bad enough), it's the institutionalized "cover" that their unions and Komrades provide for them to do the crimes that they do.

American service members commit crimes, everyday. And, everyday, those crimes are disclosed by and investigated by other uniformed members, they're prosecuted by uniformed members and they're decided by a panel of uniformed members that give their verdicts to the judicial uniformed member in the court room. Much more frequently than not, those verdicts are "guilty". That would never happen with cops and that's the problem.

guess maybe he did get it back...I was too quick to remember a situation where a friend of mine out on Interstate 10 lost a lot of “goodies” in “drug” stop in Louisiana...friend had a brand new custom van....Cops stop my friend, and says they are looking for a van like his.....they meant it....the sheriff was looking for a new Ford van...

So you won’t address the question will you. You insist on adhering to your position, no matter how tenuos it gets. Last night I said something really stupid on a thread. I admitted I was wrong, then I moved on.

You can do the same.

You now have:

The Evidence.
The Context.

You are wrong.

46
posted on 04/23/2011 3:57:45 PM PDT
by DariusBane
(People are like sheep and have two speeds: grazing and stampede)

What you dont know, cannot know is that this issue has been a long standing, running argument between two camps in conservatism. The Law and Order camp and the constitutional conservation camp. I am in the constitutional conservation camp. This post does not occur in a vacuum. It occurs as an ongoing thread.

When the chips are down Psycho, which camp are you in? Law and Order? Constitution?

I wouldn't even say that. A person who is truly "law and order" will first and foremost support the Constitution, and will oppose any police officer or agency that violates that document. You can't be "law and order" if and when you don't support the Constitution. Police do not have the authority to violate the Constitution, even if they sometimes use their access to brute force to do so. "Law and order" does not mean "the police are always right."

The real dichotomy is between those who love liberty, and those who are nothing more than instinctive bootlicks to police and other presumed authority figures. In any society, you will always have people whose first thought is how they can ingratiate themselves with those they perceive to have the most power.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.